Automatic identification (“Auto-ID”) technology is used to help machines identify objects and capture data automatically. One of the earliest Auto-ID technologies was the bar code, which uses an alternating series of thin and wide bands that can be digitally interpreted by an optical scanner. This technology gained widespread adoption and near-universal acceptance with the designation of the universal product code (“UPC”)—a standard governed by an industry-wide consortium called the Uniform Code Council. Formally adopted in 1973, the UPC is one of the most ubiquitous symbols present on virtually all manufactured goods today and has allowed for enormous efficiency in the tracking of goods through the manufacturing, supply, and distribution of various goods.
However, the bar code still requires manual interrogation by a human operator to scan each tagged object individually with a scanner. This is a line-of-sight process that has inherent limitations in speed and reliability. In addition, the UPC bar codes only allow for manufacturer and product type information to be encoded into the barcode, not the unique item's serial number. The bar code on one milk carton is the same as every other, making it impossible to count objects or individually check expiration dates.
Currently cartons are marked with barcode labels. These printed labels have over 40 “standard” layouts, can be mis-printed, smeared, mis-positioned and mis-labeled. In transit, these outer labels are often damaged or lost. Upon receipt, the pallets typically have to be broken-down and each case scanned into an enterprise system. Error rates at each point in the supply chain have been 4-18% thus creating a billion dollar inventory visibility problem. Only with radio frequency identification (“RFID”) does the physical layer of actual goods automatically tie into software applications, to provide accurate tracking.
The emerging RFID technology employs a radio frequency (“RF”) wireless link and ultra-small embedded computer chips, to overcome these barcode limitations. RFID technology allows physical objects to be identified and tracked via these wireless “tags”. It functions like a bar code that communicates to the reader automatically without needing manual line-of-sight scanning or singulation of the objects. RFID promises to radically transform the retail, pharmaceutical, military, and transportation industries.
The advantages of RFIDs over bar code are summarized in Table 1:
TABLE 1BarcodeRFIDNeed line-of-sight to readIdentification without visualcontactRead onlyAble to read/writeOnly a barcode numberAble to store information in tagBarcode number is fixedInformation can be renewedanytimeCategory level tagging only-no uniqueUnique item identificationitem identifierUnable to read if barcode is damagedCan withstand harshenvironmentUse onceReusableLow costHigher costLess FlexibilityHigher Flexibility/Value
As shown in FIG. 1, an RFID system 100 includes a tag 102, a reader 104, and an optional server 106. The tag 102 includes an IC chip and an antenna. The IC chip includes a digital decoder needed to execute the computer commands that the tag 102 receives from the tag reader 104. The IC chip also includes a power supply circuit to extract and regulate power from the RF reader; a detector to decode signals from the reader; a backscatter modulator, a transmitter to send data back to the reader; anti-collision protocol circuits; and at least enough memory to store its EPC code.
Communication begins with a reader 104 sending out signals to find the tag 102. When the radio wave hits the tag 102 and the tag 102 recognizes and responds to the reader's signal, the reader 104 decodes the data programmed into the tag 102. The information is then passed to a server 106 for processing, storage, and/or propagation to another computing device. By tagging a variety of items, information about the nature and location of goods can be known instantly and automatically.
Many RFID systems use reflected or “backscattered” radio frequency (RF) waves to transmit information from the tag 102 to the reader 104. Since passive (Class-1 and Class-2) tags get all of their power from the reader signal, the tags are only powered when in the beam of the reader 104.
The Auto ID Center EPC-Compliant tag classes are set forth below:                Class-1                    Identity tags (RF user programmable, maximum range 3 m)            Lowest cost                        Class-2                    Memory tags (8 bits to 128 Mbits programmable at maximum 3 m range)            Security & privacy protection            Low cost                        Class-3                    Semi-Active tags            Battery tags (256 bits to 64 Kb)            Self-Powered Backscatter (internal clock, sensor interface support)            100 meter range            Moderate cost                        Class-4                    Active tags            Active transmission (permits tag-speaks-first operating modes)            Up to 30,000 meter range            Higher cost                        
In RFID systems where passive receivers (i.e., Class-1 and Class-2 tags) are able to capture enough energy from the transmitted RF to power the device, no batteries are necessary. In systems where distance prevents powering a device in this manner, an alternative power source must be used. For these “alternate” systems (also known as active or semi-passive), batteries are the most common form of power. This greatly increases read range, and the reliability of tag reads, because the tag doesn't need power from the reader. Class-3 tags only need a 10 mV signal from the reader in comparison to the 500 mV that a Class-1 tag needs to operate. This 2,500:1 reduction in power requirement permits Class-3 tags to operate out to a distance of 100 meters or more compared with a Class-1 range of only about 3 meters.
Early field trials have shown that the currently available passive short-range Class-1 and Class-2 tags are often inadequate for tagging pallets and many types of cases. The problems with these passive tags are particularly severe when working with “RF-unfriendly” materials like metal (like soup cans), metal foils (like potato chips), or conductive liquids (like soft drinks, shampoo). No one can consistently read case tags located in the interior of a stack of cases—as occurs in a warehouse or pallet. The existing passive tags are also inadequate to tag large or rapidly moving objects like trucks, cars, shipping containers, etc.
Class-3 tags solve this problem by incorporating batteries and signal preamplifiers to increase range. This battery will last many years if power consumption is managed well, but only a few days if power consumption is managed poorly. Because battery powered systems (also known as active devices) will coexist with passive devices, care must be taken to reduce the power drain of the battery powered systems. Class-1 RFID tags, for example, receive their operating power from the Reader (Transmitted power). The definition of Class-3 RFID devices requires distances sufficient to make this an unusable power source. Additionally, Class-3 devices must co-exist in Class-1 environments and care must be taken to manage power drain from the battery of all active or semi-active devices. If a Class-3 device continually responds to unwanted Class-1 instructions (these being commands for “other” devices) battery power will be drained extremely quickly.
Wake up codes have been used in RFID systems to selectively “wake up” individual tags and not others, thereby conserving the battery life of the tags that are not needed and/or reducing the amount of signal received back from a given set of tags. Typically, the reader broadcasts a wake up code, and each tag activates just long enough to determine whether the broadcast code matches a code stored in the tag's memory. If the codes match, the tag fully activates. If the codes do not match, the tag returns to a hibernate state or does not respond further to the reader.
The use of wake up codes has been proven to be effective at reducing overall battery consumption in Class-3 devices. However, it would be desirable to eliminate the need for all tags receiving a broadcasted wake up code to analyze the wake up code to determine whether the wake up code corresponds to that particular tag. Thus, it would be desirable to add some type of encoding to indicate early on during receipt of the wake up code whether or not to continue to analyze the rest of the wake up code string.